Because Outlawing Gay Marriage Makes Me Wanna Screw!

|

A novel twist today in the increasingly desperate National Review/Republican crusade to protect hetero marriage from the homo hordes, care of Kansas Senator Sam Brownback:

The experience of Europe also shows that the decline of the institution of marriage goes hand in hand with a decline in married fertility, and a corresponding decline in population. Because of the birth dearth in Europe, many countries find themselves faced with the prospect of aging (soon to be shrinking) populations and an impending collapse of their social-welfare systems because of a declining ratio of workers to retirees. Two proposed means of keeping the social and economic systems of these countries afloat ? enormous tax hikes and importing vastly increased numbers of laborers ? are widely viewed as infeasible. Whatever might be said in favor of mandating homosexual marriage, it certainly cannot be argued that it would increase the married fertility rate.

Good point! It also "certainly can't be argued" that legalizing gay marriage would cure breast cancer, or solve the crisis in Sudan ? which are about as relevant to the argument as married fertility rates (unless Brownback really believes that FMA would serve as a final barrier preventing otherwise humping heteros from crossing over to the Dark Side).

If propping up birth rates is really Brownback's bag, then I'd suggest redirecting his wrath toward prosperity, which is arguably the single biggest force for reduced birth rates worldwide. Unless he could somehow achieve the Religious Right's trifecta, and make almost all abortion illegal, clamp down on foreign contraceptives, and twiddle the tax code to reward procreators. After all, it worked so well for Ceausescu.

NEXT: Winwood Sees A Chance, Takes It

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. FUCK THE NRO. FUCK THE SENATOR. FUCK EVERYONE THEY PUBLISH. FUCK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE EVIL FUCKING BASTARDS.

    Must we link to NRO? Every time I visit there, I wind up screaming to keep my head from exploding. Never has a the US seen a viler organization than National Review Online.

  2. Brownback’s argument is so absurd, and so totalitarian in its implications, that one wonders how it can even be made. Has any reasonable person ever said to him- or herself, “gosh, I don’t really want any more kids but I’d better have one to help shore up the welfare state and stave off any attempt at an infeasible tax increase.”

  3. Matt,

    You forgot to add, “if we outlaw gay marriage, the terrorists win” ๐Ÿ™‚

    Warren,

    do you need a cold drink, or something?

    “Never has a the US seen a viler organization than National Review Online”

    Why stop with the US, why not the ‘world’?

  4. I think the fact that he’s a United States senator makes the column more worth pointing out. I wonder if he’ll be asked to speak on opening night of the Republican Convention?

  5. Zorel,
    I definately could use a drink. You buying?

    Thanks.

  6. Matt,

    The fact that he is a Senator is not that special – there are others in the senate (Santorum, for instance) who share this belief. And around 50% of the US population is opposed to gay marriage. I don’t understand your point that someone who thinks (speaks) that way shouldn’t/couldn’t be a US Senator?

  7. I think Senator Brownback could stand to read The Medium Lobster’s take on gay marriage:

    http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2004_01_18_fafblog_archive.html#107453680391416212

  8. warren,

    I would gladly buy you a drink in the interest of ‘peace’ (and quiet), but you are hilarious as is (without one) ๐Ÿ™‚

  9. zorel — Point being, a senator’s opinion column in The National Review is generally more worthy of notice & scrutiny than a columnist’s column in The National Review, on account of the whole he’s-on-our-payroll deal.

  10. “Unless he could somehow achieve the Religious Right’s trifecta, and make almost all abortion illegal, clamp down on foreign contraceptives, and twiddle the tax code to reward procreators.”

    Oh he is trying his damndest.
    -Ashamed Nick in Kansas

  11. Brownback is the same guy who has it in for Howard Stern, sponsored the recent broadcast “decency” bill, and is one of six senators living in subsidized “Christian fellowship” housing. He fits right in at NRO.

  12. Did I read this correctly? The Chinese need gay marriage instead of a one child policy, right? ๐Ÿ™‚

    In all seriousness, Brownback commits the same fallacy common to opponents of gay marriage, looking at the decline in marriage rates after gay marriage is introduced without looking at the prior trend. It’s not that gay marriage trivializes marriage, but that as marriage becomes less important to society, heteros are more likely to share it. As the value of something goes down, people guard it less. If marriage became more important to society after allowing gay marriage, the presence of homosexuals among the married wouldn’t be a hinderance (in fact there would be more people with a stake in the institution).

  13. CORRECTION — I said “FEMA,” I meant “FMA” … or did I??

  14. Conservative Republican Senator Sam Brownback, master logician and proud scion of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. (Gay sex reference intended.)

    So he’s an authoritarian, religious-right, social welfare advocating prick. Show me a Republican senator who isn’t.

  15. OK, my wife and I plan to adopt some kids in a few years. Our desire for a family was not abated in the least bit when the Massachussettes Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage. It wasn’t abated in the least bit when the mayor of San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

    I don’t claim to know all the reasons why some people decide not to have children, but I somehow doubt that gay marriage has much to do with it. Sure, there’s probably a tiny handful of people who won’t emerge from the closet until gay marriage is legalized. And undoubtedly a small fraction of that handful would have otherwise had kids otherwise. But that fraction of a fraction is not enough to explain Europe’s declining fertility rates.

    Incidentally, I suppose that by choosing to adopt rather than procreate you could argue that my wife and I are contributing to a declining population. Well, let’s just say that having kids the regular way would entail certain unusual risks for my wife. And if you want to know the details you’ll have to pry her medical records from my cold, dead hands. Although I suppose the Senator could probably get a “National Security Letter” and obtain the records without our knowledge.

  16. Fred,
    Why do you invoke Goldwater? He was the perfect example of a Republican who wasn’t “an authoritarian, religious-right, social welfare advocating prick.” Unfortunately Goldwater Republicans are now extinct. I don’t know if he ever spoke on the topic of gay marriage, but I do know he criticized Clinton for his “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. In the Senator’s opinion the Commander in Chief should have simply ordered the military to accept gays openly.

  17. Warren,

    That’s my point. Taft and Goldwater were the true conservative Republicans. I was being sarcastic.

  18. In the Netherlands, same-sex marriage has increased the cultural separation of marriage from parenthood, resulting in a soaring out-of-wedlock birthrate.

    Why is it politicians can site the Netherlands (and Europe in General) as a model to the decline of marriage through legalized gay marriage but not as a model on decriminalizing drugs, specifically marijuana? ๐Ÿ™‚

    Ironically, the fact that I can enjoy a good puff in Amsterdam has led to my girlfriend and I discussing getting married there or maybe Rotterdam. She favors it so she can have one of her closest friends, a gay man, participate as a brides maid. I think I will send Bareback, oops I mean Brownback, an invite.

  19. ” resulting in a soaring out-of-wedlock birthrate.”

    He says this as if it were a BAD thing.

  20. Sen. Brownback is worried that too few babies will undermine the welfare state? I always thought people having too many babies was the big threat to the welfare state.

  21. “In the Netherlands, same-sex marriage has increased the cultural separation of marriage from parenthood, resulting in a soaring out-of-wedlock birthrate.”

    Nice try there, implying a causal and sequential relationship between gay marriage and illegitimacy. Try simply “they’re daft progressive hippies” (I say this fondly) for the roots of both.

    Also, he could instead propose (not that I am advocating this) to do what Australia’s done, and offer a baby bounty — tax-free cash payments of $AUS 3000 for babies born after July 1, regardless of mother’s marital status. (You can guess the results so far, and confirm them here.) Bad idea of course, but makes the politicians/govt look soooo generous and caring to the gullible and compliant. Stick bad; carrot good.

  22. Isn’t brownbacking something swarthy people do in the privacy of their own homes?

  23. OT, but you ever wonder about how “Pro-free market” types at NRO, Washington Times, NY Post, etc…reconcile that view with the fact that NONE of those operations ever actually *makes* money? If you want free market, it’s T&A and not their rantings.

    And as a gay man, I always know it’s election season when people like me get demonized by the Republicans and poorly (if at all) defended by Democrats.

    *sigh*

  24. Also, Stern has reported that Brownback has on at least one occassion washed the feet of his staff to prove his Christ-like humility.

  25. What, like we don’t have enough people in this country?! I think what Brownback really means is that the nice white people aren’t humping enough and are being replaced by insufficiently American ‘foreigners’ who speak more than one language, tan better and have lots of kids.

  26. I am fairly sure that legalized gay marriage is not causing a reduced rate of fertility in Europe. So if there is a reduced rate what is causing it? I mean what would cause Europeans to have less babies than Americans?

  27. Also, super increasing the tax rate would solve the fertility problems, because it would reduce prosperity, and it is known that less prosperous nations have a higher birth rate.

    Another also; if we legalize gay marriage, we can also legalize poligamy (I think the two go hand in hand as none of the governments buisness), and then the mormons can go at it again in full force, and we would remain afloat with mormon babies.

  28. Also, super increasing the tax rate would solve the fertility problems, because it would reduce prosperity, and it is known that less prosperous nations have a higher birth rate.

    Another also; if we legalize gay marriage, we can also legalize poligamy (I think the two go hand in hand as none of the governments buisness), and then the mormons can go at it again in full force, and we would remain afloat with mormon babies.

  29. Too bad they don’t have enough people in the EU nations, but it’s nice to know that they’re embracing all of the immigrants looking to work and raise families there.

  30. You don’t actually have to “import” laborers, you know. They pretty much import themselves, as long as you don’t stick chain link and firearms in their faces.

  31. I just love how opponents of gay marriage keep grasping at straws to legitimize tampering with the constitution for the first time to enshrine social policy in the Constitution with the FMA. They just can’t seem to get enough of these factually flawed reports on population and marriage decline in Scandinavia. Gay marriage has no effect on the sexual habits of straight couples! The fact that they can make the connection with a straight face (pardon the pun) is ridiculous!

  32. “…twiddle the tax code to reward procreators”

    It always fries my bacon when some clown bags on tax breaks for “procreators” when the “breaks” don’t even come close to the cost of raising FUTURE TAXPAYERS. I guess they figure on offshoring reproduction to replace the current population, but the newcomers may not be as willing to pay FICA for old people (i.e. the aforementioned clown) to whom they aren’t related in any way, shape or form.

  33. ‘It always fries my bacon when some clown bags on tax breaks for “procreators” when the “breaks” don’t even come close to the cost of raising FUTURE TAXPAYERS.’

    Ken, no one is forcing couples to have children. If they want to avoid the costs of doing so, there is a simple solution: don’t have kids.

  34. Isn’t Brownback the horse’s ass who advocated putting American troops in harm’s way to rescue Christian missionaries held hostage in the Phillipines? To paraphrase Mencken, no one ever got kicked out of office by underestimating the intellegence of the American voter.

  35. Brian,

    Do you maintain that raising children provides no benefits to the general population? Or is it that those bearing the costs of child rearing should do so without any assistance?

    Is there any future if everyone chooses to “avoid the costs” of children?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.